The Lib Dem’s present shambles over Lord Rennard is the direct result of a botched attempt to fudge the issue of the sexual harassment allegations against this powerful and influential figure whose behaviour has been covered up by the leadership for years.

The inquiry led by Alistair Webster QC created total confusion – and gave Rennard and his supporters plausible grounds for crying ‘foul’ – by concluding that the case against Rennard was unproven, and yet also calling upon him to apologise in the light of “broadly credible” claims against him by 11 women.

Crucially, Webster’s report (though it hasn’t been seen by Rennard, or indeed Clegg, due apparently, to mysterious “data protection” concerns) seems to have blurred and confused two distinct standards of proof: Webster says the case against Rennard does not satisfy the “beyond reasonable doubt” (ie being at least 99% sure of guilt) standard required for criminal cases, and which is also, it seems, required before disciplinary action can be taken under the Lib Dem’s rules. But Rennard’s supporter and legal adviser Lord Carlile QC claims that Webster told him that even the civil “balance of probability” standard of proof could not be met. This seems incredible, given Webster’s statement that in his opinion “the evidence of behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants was broadly credible.” Remember, that the “balance of probability” test (ie being 51% sure of someone’s guilt) is considered sufficient for an employer to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct and is the test that employment tribunals apply when considering cases.

It turns out that what Webster meant was that he didn’t think there was a 51% chance of satisfying the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, which is, of course, not what the “balance of probability” test means – something that both Webster QC and Carlile QC must surely understand.

With Rennard threatening legal action, 100 women members signing a letter demanding “no apology, no whip” and the party split on generational lines, the Lib Dems are well and truly in the shit over this. Not only has their claim to be a party that takes equality seriously been destroyed: they’ve shown themselves to be a total shower who can’t even organise an effective fudge.

We are quite used to lies from the Weekly Worker, but this looks staggeringly dishonest even by their standards. The article is either unbelievably ill-informed or a carefully constructed tissue of lies (maybe a bit of both).

Note first their virtual endorsement of the SP’s “arguments” about Steve Hedley (on form, perhaps, from a group that entitled an article about the SWP’s Martin Smith case “Rape is not the problem”, but still slightly shocking). They come close to condemning the AWL for pursuing the issue.

Beyond that the article is full of various lies about us, but we will limit ourselves to setting out the facts of the case it refers to (contrast our exactness to the lack of facts in the WW).

1. The person accused of sexual abuse is not and has never been an AWL member, organised sympathiser, financial contributor, regular ally, etc. He has attended a few AWL public events, and mostly in 2011/12. The incidents of abuse did not take place at AWL events or have any connection with the AWL.

2. No one denies he is guilty of wrongdoing, or has published any defence of him.

3. The individual in question was expelled from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts and told he is not allowed at NCAFC events. No one in the NCAFC opposed this, including the AWL. In fact he himself did not oppose or object to it.

4. He attended parts of our Ideas for Freedom event in June 2013 as a paying individual participant. At that time and for some time afterwards no one objected to his attendance. Another person planning to attend IFF asked our organisers not to bar him, but to arrange things to limit his personal contact with her at the event. We did that, and put in place other conditions designed to ensure that he would not be present at any of the socials and would be kept under observation at all times. At the time these arrangements were concluded to the satisfaction of everyone involved in the discussions. In the end he spent most of the event in the ULU bar (no alcohol, just food, tables and stalls) talking to non-AWL members who are or were his friends. (We did not publicise these arrangements, through a statement or whatever, for obvious reasons – it would have been totally inappropriate.)

5. The WW article seems to imply that the individual in question molested or abused people at IFF – which is not the case and which no one has claimed. This is so bizarre that in this instance maybe WW has genuinely misunderstood. Surely not even they could by so cynical as to consciously invent this.

6. The WW quotes a complaint about encountering him at an “event”. They claim this event was IFF but in fact it was another, non-AWL event.

7. He has attended no AWL events since IFF 2013 and we have deliberately had no political contact with him.

8. In December 2013, following further discussions on the issue and re-assessment, we contacted him to tell him he is not allowed to attend AWL events – despite the fact we had had no contact with him since June.

9. No one has left the AWL because of the case.

Of course, it is possible to think we should have handled this, or elements of it, differently. But the idea that there is any comparison with Martin Smith or Steve Hedley is not so much bizarre as surreal. The contrast with the Socialist Party’s handling of the Hedley cases, and their vocal and continuing defence and promotion of Hedley – who, unlike the individual concerned here, does not admit he has done anything wrong – could not be clearer.* And we will continue to highlight the SP’s disgraceful conduct over the Hedley cases, regardless of whether Weekly Worker and the “CPGB” are now among the SP’s defenders.

* The equivalent would be if we had denied the person in question had done anything wrong; published articles defending him, attacking his victims for their mental health problems, hailing him as an activist and saying we would continue to work closely with him; and then invited him to speak at a major national AWL event.